remote_share_server_stop

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key side effect of disconnecting all viewers, which is valuable. However, it omits details about whether the underlying session remains active, whether the shared link is invalidated, and whether the action is reversible or idempotent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb 'Stop', immediately names the resource, and includes the key consequence. Every element earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple zero-parameter stop operation with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states the action and the primary side effect. A minor gap is that it does not relate this to the start counterpart or describe the state of the shared session after stopping, but the available context is adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description agrees with the schema by implying no configuration is needed, and there are no parameter semantics to explain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the specific verb 'Stop' and names the resource 'share server', while also stating the meaningful consequence of disconnecting all viewers. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools such as remote_share_server_start and remote_share_update.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as remote_share_server_start or remote_share_update. It does not state prerequisites, such as the share server needing to be running, nor does it warn against use when no viewers are connected.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.